US v. Lemuel Sherman

Filing 920081117

Opinion

UNPUBLISHED UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 07-5029

UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, Plaintiff - Appellee, v. LEMUEL ZEKENA SHERMAN, Defendant - Appellant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of North Carolina, at Durham. N. Carlton Tilley, Jr., District Judge. (1:07-cr-00026-NCT)

Submitted:

October 23, 2008

Decided:

November 17, 2008

Before NIEMEYER and Senior Circuit Judge.

TRAXLER,

Circuit

Judges,

and

HAMILTON,

Affirmed by unpublished per curiam opinion.

Louis C. Allen III, Federal Public Defender, William S. Trivette, Assistant Federal Public Defender, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellant. Anna Mills Wagoner, United States Attorney, Michael A. DeFranco, Assistant United States Attorney, Greensboro, North Carolina, for Appellee.

Unpublished opinions are not binding precedent in this circuit.

PER CURIAM: Lemuel Zekena Sherman appeals his conviction following his conditional guilty plea to possession of a firearm by a convicted 924(a)(2) district felon, (2006). court in violation to of 18 U.S.C. the to §§ 922(g)(1), plea, the

Prior

accepting motion

guilty suppress

denied

Sherman's

evidence We

seized following a vehicle stop in Durham, North Carolina. affirm the denial of his motion to suppress.

This court reviews the factual findings underlying a motion to suppress for clear error, and the district court's legal determinations de novo. United States v. Wilson, 484 F.3d

267, 280 (4th Cir. 2007) (citing Ornelas v. United States, 517 U.S. 690, 699 (1996)). When evaluating the denial of a motion

to suppress, we review the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government. (4th Cir. 2006). Sherman alleges that there was no reasonable suspicion justifying consistent the with stop the of his vehicle. Amendment, officer "[A]n officer a may, brief, United States v. Uzenski, 434 F.3d 690, 704

Fourth when the

conduct has a

investigatory articulable

stop

reasonable, is afoot."

suspicion

that

criminal

activity

Illinois v. Wardlow, 528 U.S. 119, 123 (2000) (citing Terry v. Ohio, 392 U.S. 1, 30 (1968)). To conduct a Terry stop, there

must be "at least a minimal level of objective justification for 2

making

the

stop."

Wardlow, more than

528 a

U.S.

at

123. less

Reasonable than probable

suspicion

requires

hunch

but

cause, and may be based on the collective knowledge of officers involved in an investigation. See id. at 123-24; see also

United States v. Hensley, 469 U.S. 221, 232 (1985). Viewing the evidence in the light most favorable to the Government, we conclude that the district court did not err when it denied Sherman's motion to suppress. stopped Sherman was an off-duty member of The officer who the Durham Police

Department who was working as a security guard at the Varsity Ale House. officer was Shortly after closing, at around 2:15 a.m., the in the restaurant's crowded parking lot when he

heard three shots fired.

He immediately turned toward where he

heard the shots and saw a car rapidly approaching him with its lights off and several security officers pointing at the car and shouting for him to stop it. Under the totality of the

circumstances, United States v. Sokolow, 490 U.S. 1, 8 (1989), we find that the officer had reasonable, articulable suspicion to stop Sherman's car. Accordingly, we affirm the district court's judgment. We dispense with oral argument because the facts and legal

contentions are adequately presented in the materials before the court and argument would not aid the decisional process. AFFIRMED 3